I agree with Boomchild. The whole thing is bullshit. We couldn't wait for the OPCW probe into the usage of chemical weapons? The Salisbury poisoning story also defies belief. The War Party has clearly taken control. On top of that, the entire strike is unconstitutional.

Strange times when we have to hear anti-war voices from the left on Fox News....

The_Noble_Cause wrote:I agree with Boomchild. The whole thing is bullshit. We couldn't wait for the OPCW probe into the usage of chemical weapons? The Salisbury poisoning story also defies belief. The War Party has clearly taken control. On top of that, the entire strike is unconstitutional.

Strange times when we have to hear anti-war voices from the left on Fox News....

Trump voters didn't vote for Sessions to shut down pot dispensaries, close down backpage/craigslist, and bomb Syria. Without Bannon, this administration is clueless.

I hear you TNC about the bombing and I've listened to several of Tucker's commentaries on the subject. I agree it's troubling but I think the chemical weapons needed to be destroyed regardless of who used them or even if nobody did. They were in a country infested with Islamic radicals.

I'm not ready to bail on Trump yet but I do think Sessions needs to go sooner rather than later.

As far as the online sex peddling, I think that needs to be shut down whenever and wherever possible. Not only is it illegal, it's dangerous for everybody concerned, especially for underage girls who are sold into it.

ohsherrie wrote:As far as the online sex peddling, I think that needs to be shut down whenever and wherever possible. Not only is it illegal, it's dangerous for everybody concerned, especially for underage girls who are sold into it.

Any website with a discussion forum could be utilized for seedy purposes. It's not the government's role to censor what individual posters can submit. And it's not just "underage sex peddling"... ALL personal ads have been shutdown, even harmless platonic stuff like CraigsList "Missed Connections." So it's created a chilling effect. Owing to this anti-free speech move, most sex workers will now be forced to walk the streets and be put in even more jeopardy. This is even dumber than the war on drugs.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

ohsherrie wrote:As far as the online sex peddling, I think that needs to be shut down whenever and wherever possible. Not only is it illegal, it's dangerous for everybody concerned, especially for underage girls who are sold into it.

Any website with a discussion forum could be utilized for seedy purposes. It's not the government's role to censor what individual posters can submit. And it's not just "underage sex peddling"... ALL personal ads have been shutdown, even harmless platonic stuff like CraigsList "Missed Connections." So it's created a chilling effect. Owing to this anti-free speech move, most sex workers will now be forced to walk the streets and be put in even more jeopardy. This is even dumber than the war on drugs.

Where to draw the line where free speech meets legality concerning sexual entertainment has been a sticky subject on a slippery slope for as long as I can remember knowing what it meant. I think you and I are on opposite sides of that subject "and ne'er the twain shall meet".

ohsherrie wrote:Where to draw the line where free speech meets legality concerning sexual entertainment has been a sticky subject on a slippery slope for as long as I can remember knowing what it meant. I think you and I are on opposite sides of that subject "and ne'er the twain shall meet".

So you are in favor of shutting down websites based upon the actions of a few irresponsible actors? Let's pretend MelodicRock was based in the USA...if I, or anyone else, on this forum began using coded messages about prostitution, should Andrew be held responsible? That's total bullshit. Owing to fears of liability, Reddit has even gone so far to now shut down forums on guns and video games. Why? Because ANY forum can be abused. This has all sorts of very very bad ramifications for free speech.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Anyone who thinks this ginned-up strike was about Assad gassing Syrians is only correct on one aspect... it IS about gas... just not the WMD kind.

More precisely, this is about gas PIPELINES. Two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar (WEST) and Iran (RUSSIA) aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria. The market is Europe and both need to traverse Syria, to serve it.

It was hoped the QATAR pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.

In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.

Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.

Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:I guess you answered my question, you have no idea. I'm not all on board with this, yet. Why always us that has to do it? If the U.N. hasen't any balls, then what's the point of having it? Certainly this has greatly improved that love affair between Trump and Putin andrew is always alking about. Seems to me Obama was the one kissing his ass. Clinton certainly worked well with him. At least when working against Trump.

Yes I did answer your question. The missile strike was ordered before any investigators were able examine the who,what, where and why. In other words, this is more of the same old same old. Again I ask, Assad knew as we all do, Trump was pulling us out of the Syrian war. So why in the hell would he do something that could possibly change that action? As far as the U.N., NATO is creates more conflicts and war then solves them. There are a lot of deep staters still in our intelligence agencies and military. What is it that they seen to want? WAR

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:Boomchild, I understand what you're saying and I certainly don't want another Defense Department Running Wild like we had under Bush. In this particular case, if what I'm reading and hearing about what was actually done is true, all they bombed was the facilities where the WMDs used by whomever were manufactured and stored. It wasn't a direct attack on Assad but it may have kept some WMDs out of the hands of Al Qaeda or Isis.

I'm not sure it's always wise to let them know exactly what you've going to do ahead of time.

I am in no way saying that we need to telegraph what are military actions are going to be. That is not the point I am making here. How do we know for sure what was bombed is what they say it was? Also if it is true, they presented it as facilities in the control of the Assad regime. In my opinion if Trump felt compelled to act, were missiles or military action his only option? I my opinion he could have applied pressure on Russia in other ways to get them to address the situation with Assad. After all, Russia is Syria's largest and most powerful ally. This is going on the assumption that Assad did it. Which a true investigation wasn't performed before the strike. We have been told that the U.S. intel on the attack was "good".

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:Where to draw the line where free speech meets legality concerning sexual entertainment has been a sticky subject on a slippery slope for as long as I can remember knowing what it meant. I think you and I are on opposite sides of that subject "and ne'er the twain shall meet".

So you are in favor of shutting down websites based upon the actions of a few irresponsible actors? Let's pretend MelodicRock was based in the USA...if I, or anyone else, on this forum began using coded messages about prostitution, should Andrew be held responsible? That's total bullshit. Owing to fears of liability, Reddit has even gone so far to now shut down forums on guns and video games. Why? Because ANY forum can be abused. This has all sorts of very very bad ramifications for free speech.

No, not if it was a circumstance like you described, I wouldn't be in favor, but according to what I've read that wasn't the circumstance with Backpage or the personals page on Craigslist (which they had already voluntarily shut down).

If Andrew knew about and condoned such behavior as was the case with Backpage then he should be held accountable, but not if it was coded and he was unaware.

Any Right can be abused, that doesn't mean we all have to like or accept the way in which it is abused. If a twisted person is daily sending, through whatever medium, disgustingly graphic threats on the life of another person should law enforcement ignore it to keep from infringing on that person's freedom of speech? Is that why they ignored Nikolas Cruz's threats on Parkland?

RPM wrote:The timing of this gas attack is very suspicious. A week after Trump says he wants us out ass ad Does this? It doesn’t make sense to me. There are many people who would like us stuck there for a long time,I hope they have conclusive evidence that this was not staged.

To me it doesn't matter who conducted the attack. Trump committed to pull out of the Syrian conflict. I take that to mean ANY military action. What has gone on here is in conflict with that position.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:I'm not ready to bail on Trump yet but I do think Sessions needs to go sooner rather than later.

Neither am I. But I am not in agreement with how he handled this situation. There is always the chance that there is something in relation to it that we are not aware of. Time will tell. I also believe that there are those that are trying to maneuver Trump into a war.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:Boomchild, I understand what you're saying and I certainly don't want another Defense Department Running Wild like we had under Bush. In this particular case, if what I'm reading and hearing about what was actually done is true, all they bombed was the facilities where the WMDs used by whomever were manufactured and stored. It wasn't a direct attack on Assad but it may have kept some WMDs out of the hands of Al Qaeda or Isis.

I'm not sure it's always wise to let them know exactly what you've going to do ahead of time.

I am in no way saying that we need to telegraph what are military actions are going to be. That is not the point I am making here. How do we know for sure what was bombed is what they say it was? Also if it is true, they presented it as facilities in the control of the Assad regime. In my opinion if Trump felt compelled to act, were missiles or military action his only option? I my opinion he could have applied pressure on Russia in other ways to get them to address the situation with Assad. After all, Russia is Syria's largest and most powerful ally. This is going on the assumption that Assad did it. Which a true investigation wasn't performed before the strike. We have been told that the U.S. intel on the attack was "good".

I don't have the answers Boomchild. Anything can be postulated. I am absolutely not in favor of this country playing World Police or using military action for financial or political reasons. I think it should be used strictly for the protection of this country. Until I know this was something other than that I will give the President the benefit of the doubt. I don't yet have reason not to do so.

slucero wrote:Anyone who thinks this ginned-up strike was about Assad gassing Syrians is only correct on one aspect... it IS about gas... just not the WMD kind.

More precisely, this is about gas PIPELINES. Two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar (WEST) and Iran (RUSSIA) aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria. The market is Europe and both need to traverse Syria, to serve it.

It was hoped the QATAR pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.

In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.

Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.

Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.

Thank you for this. This certainly puts a different perspective on the situation. Certainly worth considering.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

RPM wrote:The timing of this gas attack is very suspicious. A week after Trump says he wants us out ass ad Does this? It doesn’t make sense to me. There are many people who would like us stuck there for a long time,I hope they have conclusive evidence that this was not staged.

To me it doesn't matter who conducted the attack. Trump committed to pull out of the Syrian conflict. I take that to mean ANY military action. What has gone on here is in conflict with that position.

I agree. I think Trump felt backed in a corner because he hammered Obama about the “Red Line”But this goes against his stated position for sure. The French president is claiming he talked TrumpInto staying the course longer and that we would have coalition support. Trump needs to stick toHis original position he campaigned on.

slucero wrote:Anyone who thinks this ginned-up strike was about Assad gassing Syrians is only correct on one aspect... it IS about gas... just not the WMD kind.

More precisely, this is about gas PIPELINES. Two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar (WEST) and Iran (RUSSIA) aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria. The market is Europe and both need to traverse Syria, to serve it.

It was hoped the QATAR pipeline would provide cheaper access to Europe but Syrian President Bashar al Assad refused to give permission for the pipeline to go through his territory. Some believe Russia pressured him to reject the pipeline to safeguard its own business.

In the meantime Iran, which owns the other smaller, share of the Persian Gulf gas field, decided to lodge its own rival plan for a $10 billion pipeline to Europe via Iraq and Syria and then under the Mediterranean Sea.

These plans apparently had Russia’s blessing, possibly because it could exert more influence over Iran, which, unlike Qatar, did not host a US air base.

Assad signed off on the Iran plan in 2012 and it was due to be completed in 2016 but it was ultimately delayed because of the Arab Spring and the civil war.

Many countries supporting or opposing the war against Assad have links to these pipeline plans.

The possibility this is all about money makes a lot sense. Thanks for posting this

“If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad,” a visibly emotional Jones said of Trump. “We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

“If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad,” a visibly emotional Jones said of Trump. “We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

ohsherrie wrote:No, not if it was a circumstance like you described, I wouldn't be in favor, but according to what I've read that wasn't the circumstance with Backpage or the personals page on Craigslist (which they had already voluntarily shut down).

Voluntarily? Does this sound voluntarily?

"US Congress just passed HR 1865,FOSTA, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day. To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!"

It's a textbook example of the chilling effect that happens when the government clamps down on free speech. As already mentioned, Reddit is now shutting down other forums because they are afraid of being sued.

ohsherrie wrote:Any Right can be abused, that doesn't mean we all have to like or accept the way in which it is abused. If a twisted person is daily sending, through whatever medium, disgustingly graphic threats on the life of another person should law enforcement ignore it to keep from infringing on that person's freedom of speech? Is that why they ignored Nikolas Cruz's threats on Parkland?

This is a non-sequitur. If anything on Craig'sList or Backpage was "disgustingly graphic", individual users could flag it and take it down. Not the government's job. Furthermore, websites hosting disgustingly graphic content still exist. This is just more of the government attempting to legislate morality - as history shows, this never turns out well. This is as bad as Sessions' cracking down on pot shops. Very juvenile. Adults can make their own decisions regarding who they fuck and what they toke.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

From state owned Chinese media: "The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false."

Hey, when they're right, they're right.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

I think we need to first look for indictments to come form the outside DC prosecutor Sessions appointed to work with the IG. The hardest thing about watching all of this is to have patience. I think we are in for a long ride as this thing plays out. I too struggle with having the patience for it. But, it if ensures that charges will stick and as many of the guilty can be rounded up, I'm willing to wait.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington

ohsherrie wrote:No, not if it was a circumstance like you described, I wouldn't be in favor, but according to what I've read that wasn't the circumstance with Backpage or the personals page on Craigslist (which they had already voluntarily shut down).

Voluntarily? Does this sound voluntarily?

"US Congress just passed HR 1865,FOSTA, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day. To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!"

It's a textbook example of the chilling effect that happens when the government clamps down on free speech. As already mentioned, Reddit is now shutting down other forums because they are afraid of being sued.

Yes, they shut down before they were shut down and faced procecution for allowing prostitution to be pimped on their website. Prostitution is against the law. Murder is against the law. Should it be allowed to be arranged for hire on websites?

ohsherrie wrote:Any Right can be abused, that doesn't mean we all have to like or accept the way in which it is abused. If a twisted person is daily sending, through whatever medium, disgustingly graphic threats on the life of another person should law enforcement ignore it to keep from infringing on that person's freedom of speech? Is that why they ignored Nikolas Cruz's threats on Parkland?

This is a non-sequitur. If anything on Craig'sList or Backpage was "disgustingly graphic", individual users could flag it and take it down. Not the government's job. Furthermore, websites hosting disgustingly graphic content still exist. This is just more of the government attempting to legislate morality - as history shows, this never turns out well. This is as bad as Sessions' cracking down on pot shops. Very juvenile. Adults can make their own decisions regarding who they fuck and what they toke.

Nope, not a non-sequitur at all. The point of this discussion is infringement on Freedom of Speech, not how qraphical the ads on pimping sites are. My use of the description of the threats was simply to suggest that this could very well be taken very seriously by the recipient and should be by law enforcement. Would finding this person who sent the threats and forcing him/her to stop be infringing on the threatener's right to Freedom of Speech? Does that therefore make it logical or ok that Law Enforcement ignored all the warnings about Nikolas Cruz and allowed a lot of kids to be shot up?

Where do you draw the line on what illegal or potentially catastrophic "speech" is to be ignored?

"US Congress just passed HR 1865,FOSTA, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day. To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!"

Good. That is the way it should be. Website owners are responsible for the content posted on THEIR webspace...and that includes what is posted to message forums. When you go to a message forum and post, you are not excercising a right to free speech. You are using somebody elses "property" to express yourself. The owner is responsible for keeping things under control and "legal". That may including kicking people off, shutting down topics, removing forums, banning IP's...or removing the entire web forum from the site. It is THEIR web space that you are given the privilege to post to, not the "right".

It is no different then VH1 shutting down their forums because people were abusing them. Or, Sony shutting down their Journey forums because of how they were being used. Or, how Journey was so restrictive on what was posted to their forum. The OWNER controls the web space - not the users. If the owner can not control it, then they should take it down.

If people are using the forum for illegal things, then the owner is responsible. That is what I warned about here not too long ago (I don't remember what the details were). Or, what I said years ago when people were posting nude photos...that Andrew's site may start being considered an adult site.

Site owners censoring certain types of posts, or ads, is not restricting free speech. The people posting such things are free to go whereever else they can to do the same thing. Or, they can start their own websites. Or, they can post to Usenet where there are no restrictions. It is like submitting an article or an ad to a magazine. That magazine has the right to refuse to publish it. Period. It is not censorship or violating some right because YOU have the right to submit the article or ad to other magazines...or to self-publish it.

Craigslist is whining about what THEY should have been able to control from the start. It is THEIR fault they lost control and their personals are being abused. It is THEIR responsibility to either get control, or end the service. THEY chose to end the service and then whine about a problem THEY allowed. Get over it already.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:From state owned Chinese media: "The US has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the US-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003. However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false."

Hey, when they're right, they're right.

The last 2 nations to threaten the reserve status of the $USD and the PetroDollar?

IRAQ - Saddam Hussain when he demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the PetroDollar.

LIBYA - Gadhafi planned to quit selling Libyan oil in U.S. dollars, and would create a gold-backed "dinar" currency to compete with the euro and dollar

Next thing we are told....

Suddenly Saddam had WMD, and

Momar was a dictator..... and absurd Viagra mass rape claim.

and they had to go.

Moral of the story... don't believe what the either side of the MSM tells you, because the Establishement owns both of them.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

ohsherrie wrote:Yes, they shut down before they were shut down and faced procecution for allowing prostitution to be pimped on their website. Prostitution is against the law. Murder is against the law. Should it be allowed to be arranged for hire on websites?

Why are you comparing sex between consenting adults to murder? We have always had dumb laws. Prohibition? Sodomy? Interracial marriage? This is a huge step backwards.

ohsherrie wrote:Nope, not a non-sequitur at all. The point of this discussion is infringement on Freedom of Speech, not how qraphical the ads on pimping sites are. My use of the description of the threats was simply to suggest that this could very well be taken very seriously by the recipient and should be by law enforcement. Would finding this person who sent the threats and forcing him/her to stop be infringing on the threatener's right to Freedom of Speech? Does that therefore make it logical or ok that Law Enforcement ignored all the warnings about Nikolas Cruz and allowed a lot of kids to be shot up?

Now you are comparing sex between consenting adults to threats of a high school massacre. Nobody gets hurt when two consenting adults fuck. If we want to apply this "moral crusade" logic to Nicholas Cruz, then the social media sites that hosted his threats should be shut down by the government. That is what you are arguing.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater

Monker wrote:Good. That is the way it should be. Website owners are responsible for the content posted on THEIR webspace...and that includes what is posted to message forums. When you go to a message forum and post, you are not excercising a right to free speech. You are using somebody elses "property" to express yourself. The owner is responsible for keeping things under control and "legal". That may including kicking people off, shutting down topics, removing forums, banning IP's...or removing the entire web forum from the site. It is THEIR web space that you are given the privilege to post to, not the "right".

It is no different then VH1 shutting down their forums because people were abusing them. Or, Sony shutting down their Journey forums because of how they were being used. Or, how Journey was so restrictive on what was posted to their forum. The OWNER controls the web space - not the users. If the owner can not control it, then they should take it down.

If people are using the forum for illegal things, then the owner is responsible. That is what I warned about here not too long ago (I don't remember what the details were). Or, what I said years ago when people were posting nude photos...that Andrew's site may start being considered an adult site.

Site owners censoring certain types of posts, or ads, is not restricting free speech. The people posting such things are free to go whereever else they can to do the same thing. Or, they can start their own websites. Or, they can post to Usenet where there are no restrictions. It is like submitting an article or an ad to a magazine. That magazine has the right to refuse to publish it. Period. It is not censorship or violating some right because YOU have the right to submit the article or ad to other magazines...or to self-publish it.

Craigslist is whining about what THEY should have been able to control from the start. It is THEIR fault they lost control and their personals are being abused. It is THEIR responsibility to either get control, or end the service. THEY chose to end the service and then whine about a problem THEY allowed. Get over it already.

This crusade is not spearheaded by website owners. It's led by the government, which should not be in the business of regulating content it disagrees with on a moral basis - with limited exceptions.

The VH1 forums towards the very end were full of spam ads. Nobody was using them. Before that, it was just a lot of all SA versus Perry mudslinging. Not even a remotely close comparison.

As for websites like Craigslist doing a better job policing the millions of ads on their site...give me a break. You couldn't even manage a single dating ad.

"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater